(1) With
reference to a claim made by the Prime Minister before the war that
only the threat of force by the United States of America (US) allowed
the United Nations Monitorings Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and given that it was the
threat of force by Washington which pulled the weapons inspectors out
of Iraq in March 2003 before they could complete their work (as in December
1998), does the Prime Minister now concede that the threat of force
failed again to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

(2) What
is the Government’s response to the claim of the Executive Chairman
of UNMOVIC, Dr Blix, that the US was guilty of ‘fabricating’ evidence
against Iraq to justify the war, and his belief that the discovery of
weapons of mass destruction had been replaced by the main objective
of the US of toppling Saddam Hussein (The Guardian , 12 April 2003).

(3) With
reference to claims made by the Prime Minister before the war that there
was no doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that that
this was the primary reason for Australia’s participation in the ‘coalition
of the willing’, what is the Prime Minister’s position now that,
even after the collapse of the regime in Baghdad, no weapons of mass
destruction have been found despite United States Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld’s claim to know where they are.

(4) Given
the Prime Minister’s statements that ‘regime change’ was only
a secondary concern for Australia, does the Government agree that the
primary justification for the war may prove to be a lie.

(5) If,
as the Prime Minister repeatedly claimed, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
and Saddam Hussein could not be contained or deterred, what is the Government’s
analysis of why they were not used in the regime’s terminal hours
against the invading US, United Kingdom and Australian forces.

(6) With
reference to the Prime Minister’s argument that stopping the spread
of weapons of mass destruction was a primary motive for Australia’s
participation in a war against Iraq: (a) is the Government concerned
that one of the direct effects of the war may be the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction to third parties, including other so called
‘rogue states’ and possibly terrorist groups, and (b) what analysis
has the Government done of this likelihood, and (c) can details be provided.

(7) Does
the Prime Minister now regret saying just before the war (at the National
Press Club and elsewhere) that Saddam Hussein could stay on in power
providing he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction, thus allowing
him to continue the repression of Iraqis; if so, what circumstances
altered the Prime Minister’s view.